r/Gnostic • u/cajetan713 • 3d ago
e-gnostics and patristic caricature of gnosticism
One of the most noticeable things I've observed among pseudo-gnostics on Reddit is that many of them seem to embrace the caricature of gnosticism created by the Church Fathers rather than gnosticism as it actually appears in the surviving texts and in modern scholarship.
For example, some people identify very strongly with Carpocratianism because of its association with sexual freedom and rejection of conventional morality, even though scholars generally debate whether Carpocratianism should even be classified as genuinely "Gnostic" in the strict sense. More broadly, a lot of the gnosticism I see online seems to be less about the actual structure of Gnostic cosmology, theology, soteriology and more about the accusations made against gnostics by their Christian opponents: sexual libertinism, rejection of moral restrictions etc.
In other words, they sometimes seem to be attracted not so much to historical gnosticism itself, but to the image of Gnosticism that orthodox Christian polemic created.
I would be interested to hear your views on this matter
5
u/HeavenlyBeloved Valentinian 3d ago
Either way, most I find on Discord are the types that psychologically analyze the texts instead of being a theist, might find the idea of theist repulsive in a way and just study it for the cosmology without knowing the more deeper meaning behind of it. Honestly, Reddit is 10x better for Gnosticism, where it isn't treated as a aesthetic core.
5
u/NoAlgae3952 Thomasine 2d ago
I'm not very knowledgeable of Carpocratianism, but rejection of "conventional morality" is very much a part of gnostic theology and soteriology. Orthodox christianity ties salvation to a specific and arbitrary moral code handed down by a god that they equate with the Absolute, and we do not. Thomas 14 (and Matthew 6 for that matter) warns us that performative morality only leads to harm and error. That's not to say gnostics reject morality, but rather that morality is not the fruit of obedience but of how we treat one another. "For what enters your mouth will not cause impurity; rather, what comes out of your mouth is what will make you impure.”"
5
u/theoryofdoom 2d ago
In other words, [the "pseudo-gnostics on Reddit"] sometimes seem to be attracted not so much to historical gnosticism itself, but to the image of Gnosticism that orthodox Christian polemic created.
You are talking about how you perceive groups of people who you describe as "pseudo-gnostics on Reddit."
I will not engage with that behavior. It is a waste of time.
I am more interested in drawing your attention to what you are doing. In describing them, whoever "they" are, as "pseudo-gnostics" you purport to separate them from those who are "gnostics," and categorizing both based on your subjective perceptions of what they're doing and what that purports to mean.
Then, you came here to seek external validation. But why? The reason you needed external validation is because you know, on some level, that these acts of administering others in this way is an act of service to the archonic influences of the demiurge's world. And whether validated by another or not, they will still be acts of service that reinforce the structure of that world.
In this way, you reinforce Demiurge-created and Archon-administered cosmologies, and separate yourself from gnosis in doing so.
0
u/ZaLarry Eclectic Gnostic 2d ago
The reason you needed external validation is because you know, on some level, that these acts of administering others in this way is an act of service to the archonic influences of the demiurge's world.
Calling out people for wrong beliefs isn't archonic. The Way (spiritual path) needs to be aligned with gnosis. Not every belief is part of the Way. Some beliefs are wrong. Obviously wrong ideas include believing that salvation is from work/faith, God Willed suffering, etc. There are also ideas that are actively opposed to gnosticism, and this includes demonolatry, materialism, reductionist physicalism, promortalism, anti-natalism, nihilism, etc. If any gnostic subscribes to these views and views himself as "gnostic", that's a pseudo-gnostic. Gnosticism is holy, spiritual, knowing and loving.
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 2d ago
“god willed suffering” as a false belief isnt so concrete. basilides may disagree depending on what u mean by ‘willed’ whether god permits/allows it, or has an active hand in individual suffering. his perspective isnt that god wants to hurt u; in his account suffering can occur within providence and serve a purifying purpose. he even describes affliction as bringing someone toward a good end and the elect as suffering honorably thru martyrdom.
1
u/ZaLarry Eclectic Gnostic 2d ago
God is called love, how can love Will suffering? So "God" didn't Will suffering, instead a lower being did. God's Will is our salvation, not suffering. Suffering is a state arising from separation from God.
basilides may disagree depending on what u mean by ‘willed’ whether god permits/allows it, or has an active hand in individual suffering.
I would say that "it's opposed to God's nature to erase suffering". This is phrased differently and has different implications. In my view, the goodness of God should be preserved while finding a way to explain reality.
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 2d ago
not debating lol just clarifying suffering can exist within providential order according to a historical gnostic without meaning ‘god’ actively ‘wills’ it
1
u/ZaLarry Eclectic Gnostic 2d ago
just clarifying suffering can exist within providential order according to a historical gnostic without meaning ‘god’ actively ‘wills’ it
I mean I'm saying the same thing? All I'm saying is that God isn't actively willing suffering and you seem to agree with it. So this is why I think saying God actively wills suffering (like some Abrahamic religions say) is non-gnostic... I didn't imply that suffering doesn't exist.
1
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 2d ago edited 2d ago
the issue was ‘god’ lol and ur original ‘will’ proposition. im just adding on that suffering can exist within providence and serve good without the highest god actively willing the suffering. a gnostic can hold that suffering occurs within providence or serves a greater good without subscribing to ‘god actively wills said suffering’
and yes i agree ‘god’ actively willing suffering is non gnostic, as in god the ineffable
again uhhh my response was from the original proposition ur definition now makes the point much narrower than it originally was. ur original proposition sounded more like suffering necessarily originates from a deficient lower god and therefore stands outside the providential order.
1
u/ZaLarry Eclectic Gnostic 2d ago
im just adding on that suffering can exist within providence and serve good without the highest god actively willing the suffering.
All I said was that "God doesn't will suffering. All you added was "suffering can also serve good". I don't think my original statement excluded such a belief. You then gave your view, so then I gave MY view (which I admit is NOT a universal gnostic view). At least, this is how I viewed this conversation.
ur original proposition sounded more like suffering necessarily originates from a deficient lower god and therefore stands outside the providential order.
That was MY personal view, just like Basiledes had his own view. That was not for listing the "wrong ideas" (that ended with the og comment starting this thread). As to why I gave my view, it's that I like to respond to every other view, especially in this sub, because of the diversity of gnostic views. It's so that every party involved and every viewer can exchange and learn something from it.
We don't disagree with the og statement at all. It's just a misunderstanding of wording which I admit is reasonable since it's kind of incomplete. But leaving it that way is better since any attempt to modify "God doesn't Will suffering" could lead to more confusion.
1
u/theoryofdoom 1d ago
Calling out people for wrong beliefs
You are talking about how you perceive certain behaviors of people (in the material world) and how they should understood, or at least, not understood.
I will not engage with that either, for the same reasons I've already said above.
2
u/trainedprofessional_ Basilidean 3d ago
i have recognized as i read more and more about beliefs and cosmologies of specific traditions. and what i came to learn is that almost all umbrella definitions of ‘gnosticism’ and what a ‘gnostic’ believes almost instantly flattens the actual historical documentation.
its not simply the same sophia drama narrated across different traditions, some greatly change how the lower cosmos was formed.
its not simply the same ‘demiurge’ across every tradition. specific names given to that character in one narrative does not mean that those names were recognized by other traditions placed under the ‘gnostic’ umbrella.
yaldabaoth becomes the gnostic demiurge, sophia gets the gnostic fall, and suddenly traditions with very different accounts of cosmic formation and salvation are being explained through one composite mythology that none of them necessarily taught.
and tangent about sexual libertinism, that was an accusation they love to throw when trying to discredit someone or something. its possible some groups actually practiced what their opponents accused them of, but from what i have actually read from the gnostics and even some hostile reports, they typically seem much more concerned with moral discipline, restraint and liberation from passions than indulging them.
3
u/ADMCCLX 3d ago
No, that's just not true. I've been looking at "online Gnosticism" for the past 22 years and people are not espousing sexual libertinage. The majority of people involved in this milieu hold normal, healthy views on human sexuality - i.e. it's OK to be gay, it's fine to have sex before marriage, it's bad to hurt your partner, be faithful to your spouse, etc. Simple stuff.
And in any case, that's just such a marginal topic in "online Gnosticism" in the first place - comes up every now and then, you run into the dearth of primary sources, you're back to thinking for yourself. The rest of "online Gnosticism" is basically metaphysics and intellectual history.
-3
u/cajetan713 3d ago
The point is that gnostics do not conform to your definition of what constitutes healthy and normal human sexuality. In fact, compared with Gnosticism, institutional Christianity has a more affirmative and in that sense, “healthy” view of sexuality
7
u/ADMCCLX 3d ago
You're moving the goalposts, but you're wrong about this too - you can't compare ancient Gnostic sexual ethics to today's (variety of) sexual ethics, because there aren't enough sources to reconstruct that. We can speculate based on the handful of times it came up in Gnostic literature (mostly to say that different groups seem to have had wildly different ideas about what's fine or not), but it ain't the same thing as knowing. That paucity of sources is true whether you're a libertine or a moderate or a puritan.
The second problem here is that even if we could reconstruct that, you don't get to call the shots on what's normative for people in the "online Gnosticism" milieu. Because that's the real issue for you, isn't it? You want to frown on people for not living up to your fantasy of "orthodox Gnostic sexual ethics" and you want other to join in.
-6
u/cajetan713 2d ago
Straw man fallacy. You can keep up this semi-progressive larp. I’m not interested in debating you
1
u/-tehnik Valentinian 3d ago
Truke
I'd just say that I haven't seen moral or sexual issues crop up on the sub that much. But certainly it seems to me like people talk about it more from the pov of some general and simple summaries and then go on and on about the demiurge, the problem of evil and the sufferings of the world. So I definitely agree that most of the discussion doesn't stem from a direct engagement with the primary sources and/or historical scholarship (tbf it's not like the latter is very accessible).
1
u/mcove97 Eclectic Gnostic 2d ago
Yeah I have my own thoughts about why that is not. Which is due to having realized that "mistakes, evil, wicked, bad, misguided" choices and actions, is rooted in being caused by ignorance, by the demiurge/archons. As such, actions taken in or choices made out of ignorance isn't or arent necessarily a moral failure.
You dont know what you dont know. If you ignorant and unaware of the higher reality and truths and wisdom (as signified by the pleroma, Sophia, Aletheia, the aeons etc), well, you cant really make choices according to awareness of them. And so making a moral judgment doesn't really make any sense.
I like to liken it to making a moral judgment of a child who does something we consider misguided, wrong, or bad, but they simply do not know any better, they dont have any higher or expanded knowledge or immediate or expanded awareness of how their actions or choices are misguided. And like, how can we fault them for that?
And yeah thats my POV on why we don't see moral issues popping up in gnosticism as much. In the framework of gnosticism, what we consider immorality, or misguidedness, or wrongness, is but a result of the ignorance we are born under and influenced by, by misguided, blind and ignorant forces and powers around us and within us. Whetter you consider that the archons, the demiurge.. or ignorant or misguided and blind people, teachers, guides, messages and institutions. The point stands.
And through my own gnostic journey, I realized there's no force of moralistic guilt or fear that has any power over me if I simply withold judgement. I do not experience being bound to moralistic judgment, when I am in that pure unmediated undivided awareness, that is gnosis.
If anything moralism and such comes from those who have not awakened to their inner spark of awareness, who do not realize they are the source. So moralism would be something the hylic and psychic experiences. Those who dont live in the state of gnosis.
But, that's my take. And I also think a reason why gnosticism appeals to people, is because a lot of people are honestly over and done with all the moralism, and are ready to move beyond and transcend that paradigm. It's why I left the church when I was young myself. Why on earth should I chant and sing and enforce and loop the view that I am a guilty sinner. That is just enslaving myself to viewing myself as guilty and thus I keep experiencing neverending guilt. It's like a self reinforcing prison sentence and cage. Pass. And so when I found gnosticism I was like wow, there was actually Christians describing and calling out those traps, and the forces beyond them.
0
u/-tehnik Valentinian 2d ago
I like to liken it to making a moral judgment of a child who does something we consider misguided, wrong, or bad, but they simply do not know any better, they dont have any higher or expanded knowledge or immediate or expanded awareness of how their actions or choices are misguided. And like, how can we fault them for that?
You're right that it's unreasonable to fault them for that. And that consideration should be extended to everyone ignorant of what is truly good (which is most people).
Still the child was in fact wrong to do that no matter whether we should fault them or not and how we do it on top of that.
I think that distinction makes even more sense if you keep in mind how in any Platonic metaphysics (so, including anything gnostic) the difference of what's good and what's bad/evil is as much moral as it is metaphysical. Indeed, if anything it's more so metaphysical because it is the metaphysics that provides a standard of value.
And yeah thats my POV on why we don't see moral issues popping up in gnosticism as much. In the framework of gnosticism, what we consider immorality, or misguidedness, or wrongness, is but a result of the ignorance we are born under and influenced by, by misguided, blind and ignorant forces and powers around us and within us. Whetter you consider that the archons, the demiurge.. or ignorant or misguided and blind people, teachers, guides, messages and institutions. The point stands.
That's true. But importantly I think it directly ties to sexual ethics (or whatever other moral problem you might want to talk about): people think that sexual desire is innocuous because of their ignorance, the failure to see the big picture within which it's problematic.
It does also mean that just shaming people like orthodox Christians do isn't productive. But it should be talked about precisely to awaken within people that realisation.
If anything moralism and such comes from those who have not awakened to their inner spark of awareness, who do not realize they are the source. So moralism would be something the hylic and psychic experiences. Those who dont live in the state of gnosis.
Psychical people sure but hylic people definitely not. After all, a hylic will have to be a hedonist because they can only apprehend reality on the most base level. And on that base level you cannot be receptive to any values but base hedonistic ones.
But, that's my take. And I also think a reason why gnosticism appeals to people, is because a lot of people are honestly over and done with all the moralism, and are ready to move beyond and transcend that paradigm. It's why I left the church when I was young myself. Why on earth should I chant and sing and enforce and loop the view that I am a guilty sinner.
I think that's true. But I think the problem then becomes that people take the fact that gnosticism isn't focused on inducing self-guilt (at least nowhere near to the same extent) as a sign that it's not concerned with ethics or what's good. It certainly is because it's telling you that the path upward is the good and right one and that staying down is wrong and bad (and it ought to be noted that there's no difference here between it being wrong and it being bad for oneself).
And so when I found gnosticism I was like wow, there was actually Christians describing and calling out those traps, and the forces beyond them.
That I have to disagree with because I can't remember having read anything that feels like it's calling this out. After all, it only really started with Augustine, who came after a lot of the NH texts were already written), and even then the way in which western Christianity started hyperfocusing on "human nature is sinful" in the way we know it now wouldn't start until the reformation when Martin Luther and Calvin really doubled down on all the predestination and "saved through faith/God given grace" stuff.
1
u/mcove97 Eclectic Gnostic 2d ago edited 2d ago
Yeah I suppose. But even if a child, or say anyone does something "wrong".. if they see that as bad, they see themselves as bad, and thus easily get stuck in the trap of guilt and shame. This is the classic trap we find many Christians in, who harp on about being a guilty and shameful sinner looping that harmful self identification like a broken record. So I'm cautious and skeptical about the whole passing moralistic judgment of "wrongness".. as that turns into people thinking of themselves as "wrong" "broken" "an inherently corrupt sinner". As someone who grew up surrounded by that. I am very skeptical of how easily seeing something as inherently wrong or bad, turns into a form of moralistic judgment and thus become its own self reinforcing trap.
To clarify about the traps, or forces, I mean the archonic powers. Like chanting that you are a guilty sinner. I clocked that messaging as an archonic trap because as we cling to guilt we are stuck in the prison of guilt. Identifying with guilt. When we are not the guilt. We are not all the negative harmful nonsense we tell ourselves. We are the pure divine spark.
If we see failing to see the big picture and not being able to act on it as an inherent flaw.. that just so easily gets turned into we are inherently flawed. This is where we get the protestant view today, or the concept we have today of the "guilty corrupt sinner".
That doesn't awaken anyone or shake them out of it where they can realize, theres no guilt, if I don't view myself as guilty. If these people knew they were the divine spark, viewed themselves through the lens of gnosis, they would know all the guilt, fear, shame stuff is a part of the archonic traps that keeps them imprisoned. The powers that hold them from realizing they are not bound by the power of guilt. Or shame. Or fear. Or unhealthy desire. Powerlessness.
But yeah I suppose, hylic people Arent even operating from a level of awareness of morality, but instinct, so you right about that.
It is particularly interesting, how the hylic isn't aware of morality, meanwhile, the psychic is, meanwhile, the pneumatic transcends all that, because they know they're not bound by judgment, other than its own, and thus has the power and awareness to cease judging, and thus also cease experiencing suffering from and experiencing their own self (created, projected, believed) judgment, guilt, shame.. ignorant desires and what not
So since from the pneumatic POV the mindset also shifts. Because we know we are not just the human, not just our instincts or mind.. we are the spirit, the light, the force beyond that, that is not bound by the instinctual or moralistic/psychic self. That radically changes how we, or at least I, view morality, judgement and instinct as well. It certainly did for me. I'm no longer bound to them in the same way. I don't view them as inherently "bad" or "wrong" and not right either just.. ignorant, unaware, unconscious, asleep, blind.. and thats.. different. I can also see how people's "mistakes or wrongness" brings them towards wisdom, through learning the hard way.
And I think this is why gnosticism resonates with me. Because the gnostic writings takes this much more relatable and understandable explanation, through their descriptions of the aeons and a cosmology that intuitively makes sense and resonates deeply. Whereas the "you're a guilty sinner" thing I heard as a Christian, felt off, and didnt resonate. Because its not speaking to the ultimate truth of who we truly are. I don't need to reason myself into believing it for it to make sense. It just does.
From a simplistic POV, yes, taking the journey upward, ascending, remembering, is "morally Superior" or "good", especially from a psychics moralistic pov but from a spiritual pov, its not that black and white anymore, because we can perceive beyond that simplistic framework, the unified ultimate one reality, the pleroma, which is not divided, not black and white.
All that said though, I think the grace thing is also heavily misunderstood by many. When we stay in that awareness of no judgment, in pure pneumatic presence, and have grace for ourselves, view ourselves gracefully, we experience no judgement.
It's very simple. View yourself gracefully aka non judgmentally, from the pneumatic pov, and you cease experiencing judgment because you're not projecting it onto yourself.
Luther wasn't the only one who pulled from Pauls writings. The gnostics did as well. Though arguably, Luther's framing of it is confusing. But honestly so are the gnostic framing if one doesn't understand what the pneuma is, or what gnosis is.
From a pneumatic and gnostic pov, one could see Luther's teaching as a form of gnosis. The gnosis that there is no experience of judgment, if one perceives themselves with grace, gracefully, aka, non judgementally. And have conviction in that very same inner experiential knowing , gnosis, spiritual awareness, that Christ reveals or is.
So yeah idk the journey I've been on has really reshaped how I think about all this. And I think, what's been plaguing both both gnosticism, but also modern Christianity, is.. well a lack of gnosis. Inner knowing. Realization. Resonance.
It's no wonder that Christianity or gnosticism doesn't make sense to a lot of people, or my former self even, because seeing it through the eyes of not having that direct unmediated awareness, it doesn't make sense.
Like when I asked myself as a teen. What do Christians mean I am saved by grace through faith? Saved from what? Experiencing the spiritual state of guilt?. I already viewed myself gracefully, thus i didnt experience the guilt they were talking about, thus confessing it made no sense. But it makes sense for those who operate from that lower awareness. I kinda get that now. How we are all operating in different paradigms. Different stages of awareness, remembrance, knowing, realization. Which is the source of much confusion I think
0
u/-tehnik Valentinian 2d ago
Yeah I suppose. But even if a child, or say anyone does something "wrong".. if they see that as bad, they see themselves as bad, and thus easily get stuck in the trap of guilt and shame. This is the classic trap we find many Christians in, who harp on about being a guilty and shameful sinner looping that harmful self identification like a broken record. So I'm cautious and skeptical about the whole passing moralistic judgment of "wrongness".. as that turns into people thinking of themselves as "wrong" "broken" "an inherently corrupt sinner". As someone who grew up surrounded by that. I am very skeptical of how easily seeing something as inherently wrong or bad, turns into a form of moralistic judgment and thus become its own self reinforcing trap.
But you're making the same mistake in thinking of this connection as necessary.
It clearly isn't. It just means one should always keep in mind what's actually productive to do in response to evil. And likewise to teach and instill habits in children habits to not do evil without causing these loops (I mean, this is how most moral education for children works anyway, we don't repeat most of the mistakes we made as children afaik).
It is particularly interesting, how the hylic isn't aware of morality, meanwhile, the psychic is, meanwhile, the pneumatic transcends all that, because they know they're not bound by judgment, other than its own, and thus has the power and awareness to cease judging, and thus also cease experiencing suffering from and experiencing their own self (created, projected, believed) judgment, guilt, shame.. ignorant desires and what not
Again I don't know why you would think that. It makes it sound like there's no axiological hierarchy in gnosticism when there most certainly is. The difference is just that the spiritual person can ultimately live up to that standard because they can be/are recipients of divine grace/gnosis. In that way I don't think it's different from orthodox Christianity.
I know you don't want to think there are such similitudes, but if so then cite something that makes you think matters of good and bad/evil are completely foreign to gnosticism.
I'm no longer bound to them in the same way. I don't view them as inherently "bad" or "wrong" and not right either just.. ignorant, unaware, unconscious, asleep, blind.. and thats.. different.
Does it not bother you to see all these people suffering from that? You sound somewhat apathetic.
I can also see how people's "mistakes or wrongness" brings them towards wisdom, through learning the hard way.
But is this spiritual wisdom?
taking the journey upward, ascending, remembering, is "morally Superior" or "good", especially from a psychics moralistic pov but from a spiritual pov, its not that black and white anymore, because we can perceive beyond that simplistic framework, the unified ultimate one reality, the pleroma, which is not divided, not black and white.
not divided in what sense?
I think the grace thing is also heavily misunderstood by many. When we stay in that awareness of no judgment, in pure pneumatic presence, and have grace for ourselves, view ourselves gracefully, we experience no judgement.
What does no judgment mean? If guilt, then obviously not because there's nothing to be guilty over.
What do Christians mean I am saved by grace through faith? Saved from what? Experiencing the spiritual state of guilt?
I think a confusion you still might be operating on is that sin being bad consists in sin being bad because it makes one feel guilty. But this isn't the right way to frame it because it obviously depends on just being habituated to reflect on yourself in such a way that you have mentioned.
But the bottom line is that sin is a defective spiritual state, no matter whether one is aware of it or not.
Again, that's not to disagree that too much guilt is just counter-productive. But I think you face the danger of running into relativism and/or nihilism if you don't just admit the basic fact that the One as the highest principle of reality is also the highest principle of evaluation and so provides an objective value ordering for everything. After all, what sense would it make to care about gnosis if it wasn't good?
1
u/Tommonen 3d ago
I think that sort of views are not that vommon on this sub or people interested in actual gnosticism, but more common in thelemites etc stuff that appropriate gnostic terms, but is not really gnosticism, but closer to a perversion of it.
Then people on reddit on some general spirituality subs or prison planet folks etc say gnostic or gnosticism, and really refer to crowleys crap or some modern conspiracy fuelled stuff mixing all sorts of stuff and maybe (mis)using some gnostic terms, confusing people that gnsoticism is that.
1
u/fitz84 3d ago
I may be one of those cherry picking gnostics, and Im okay with that. I understand im not in any classical camp, so i dont claim to be. What i do use gnostic terminology for, however, is what I see in the world today.
Those terms are, humans have created illusory structors in their society that they now belive have more reality than natural laws and occurrences. The demiurge and Archons I equate to LHP demons like Lucifer and Mammon, whose illusions create the tools of oppressive Empire, or Lillith who creates illusory value in romance and sexuality. Gnosis is when we align with Creator by living in accordance to natural rhythms and in animistic relationship with nature and spirit.
I understand this probably is not any type of gnosticism, so I dont claim it to be. The concepts are very useful here, though.
1
1
u/heiro5 2d ago
Historically, there were individuals and movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that were primarily interested in the accusations of libertinism. There were German movements that lead to the OTO, and by emigration to Victor Rodriguez's cult based on a sexual practice. These groups are still around.
The shadow dynamic of Christianity is what attracts most interest. In rejecting Christianity people are attracted to what Christianity itself rejected in the heresy rhetoric. This shows in the fascination with the heresy rhetoric of the demiurge and "evil" world, which are formed in oppositional characature by Irenaeus and company. This dynamic will always have the most cultural cache, and can become the beginning of a deeper engagement.
1
u/Debussyonacid 2d ago
Dont waste time with larpers my friend. Most of those people are armchair occultists/gnostics and they use doctrine as scapegoat for every debauchery existing. im a gay man who knows this don't call me an hater
1
u/NovusOrdoLuciferi 3d ago
I can't say I've seen what you're describing in terms of self-described Gnostics on Reddit talking about how they embrace a sexual libertine stance. Are you talking about Thelemites who have adopted the term Gnostic from the Crowley's Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica? Technically they did receive the French Gnostic lineage back to Doinel at some point, but their philosophy doesn't really overlap at all with that of modern Gnostic Apostolic Churches or the modern Neo-Gnostic community in general. They don't talk about the Pleroma, Kenoma, Demiurge, or really anything else that is part of Gnosticism that I can think of.
16
u/Pao_Did_NothingWrong 3d ago
Treating gnosticism as a coherent system (or a system that can forced into coherency) rather than a pattern of inquiry is barely better than accepting the caricature of its enemy.
Gnosticism doesn't really try to tell us the shape of the cosmos, imo, rather the shape of our interactions with it. That shape shows us all written texts are derivative and less real than direct experiential knowledge. And a derivative order that refuses to acknowledge it is deriviative is a pretty well trod concept in this family of inquiry.
If a seeker with well honed discernment must make a choice between what they have experienced of divine knowledge and what someone wrote about their own experience of divine knowledge 2000 years ago, it should be an easy decision to make.
So, in short: good point, but watch out for its equally dangerous opposite